Complaint submission to Competition Commission of India (CCI) against builders

[Rama]

Hi,
I am agree with Brijesh point of view we all can afford it.
Thanks
Rama

[AAN111]

Please fix an amount, and we will contribute. Obviously of other buyers come together, then the large number by itself will be a show of strength.

Regards,

Aan111

[sunilkbansal]

Hi,

I am owning (allotted) a flat at Omaxe Heights

I have 2 points to mention if that helps in putting our case before CCI.

1. "Construction Linked plan" %age of construction is not done as %age of payment customer is paying
I believe most of customer might have paid more than 80% of payment but construction is not 80% even in some cases customers has paid 95% of payment more than 1-2 year back but have not heard about possession since then.
Builder is fast enough in taking more than 80% of payment in first 2 years. If the construction is really 95% over as they have taken 95% of payment in first 2 years, then why are they taking time in completing rest of 5% construction.
So this "Construction linked plan" is totally biased.
I am paying to the builder as per "Construction Linked Plan". I paid 85% of the basic sale price and full EDC/IDC charges and 50% of Additional cost more than 3 years back. After that also I paid the remaining 50% additional cost and 10% of basic sale price. So more than 1 year back I paid 95% of basic sale price and Additional cost and EDC/IDC charges.
If I see total cost which I was supposed to pay to the builder I have already paid 97% of the amount more than a year back and still do not know when I will get the possession.
So at present I need to pay just 5% of basic sale price to builder and the increased EDC charges ( if we have to pay, I am hopeful we may not have to pay the increased EDC) to get possession of my flat.
At present I am in Bangalore and sent couple of emails to builder to let em know when I will get the possession, I did not get any response to my emails.

2. Increase in SBU area: When builder was just doing the floor slab, then builder was knowing how the floor plan will be altered and if this is going to increase SBU area for flat owners.
Why did the builder did not inform the customer at the same time? If customer did know how it is going to affect his financials, customer may have planned earlier. Now customer is asked to pay this amount or pay 18-24% interest.
If customer do not agree to increased SBU area, customer will be asked to cancel flat allotment and take the money back with only 5-6% of interest and may be also after some deductions.
Customer has put money long back when price of property was low and was in the customer's budget, and now if customer cancels allotment and buy property somewhere else it will be at much higher price. Now same builder is selling same project at higher price than 4-5 year earlier price.
But when Builder is going to return money he will return the old amount and again sell the unit at higher price.
I know that in these circumstances no body is going to cancel the allotment,but also may not be able to pay the price of increased SBU area.
So I believe this is also a big fraud by the builder.

Thanks,
Sunil

[BlessU]

this is a very graphic representation of litteral "molestation" of small subscribers at the hands of a builder. Not a single line in the Builder Buyer Agreement ( I like to call it Butcher Bakra Assasination Agreement BBA) is pro subscriber..
Sunil i empathise with your cause as it is similar to mine and many other. One good thing is Gfwa provides a veritable platform to fight these nuances. Dont ever try to go alone as you might get a notice from their lawyer for harrasment. Always go as an association
Check this link for the various other improprieties being conducted by builders in the sheet homes from hell in the link
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... g6cD#gid=2

Though it is specific to my investments on dway but mentioned sheet is of use and u can update on homes from hell your feelings as it is an open link

Cheers

[s1joshi]

In response to the query raised by several members yesterday, Please find attached list of agreements which are available with GFWA legal team

1. Princess Park, Sector-86, Faridabad - BPTP
2. Park 81, Parklands, Faridabad - BPTP
3. Park Grandeura, Sector-82, Faridabad - BPTP
4. Park Elite Floors, Faridabad - BPTP
5. Omaxe Spa Village, Sector-78, Faridabad - Omaxe ltd
6. Omaxe Heights, Sector-86, Faridabad - Omaxe ltd
7. RPS Palms, Faridabad - RPS Infrastructure Limited
8. RPS Savana, Faridabad - RPS Infrastructure Limited
9. SRS Residency, Sector-88, Faridabad - SRS Real Estate
10. SRS Pearl floors, Faridabad - SRS Real Estate
11. Dhingra Jardine Suburbian Floors, Sector-80, Faridabad - Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure
12. Ferrous City, Faridabad - Ferrous Infrastructure & Developers
13. Ozone Park, Sector-86, Faridabad - Shivsai Infrastructure
14. Uppal's Jade, Faridabad - Sector-86, Faridabad - Uppal Housing Limited
15. Era Redwood residency - Sector-78, Faridabad - Era Landmarks Limited
16. Era Divine court, Sector-76, Faridabad - Era Landmarks Limited

Our legal team is working toward bringing our common concerns to the attention of CCI, In case your project is not listed above, Request you to send a copy of agreement ASAP to aashkaul@gmail.com or core@myfaridabad.in.

Regards
Seema

[s1joshi]

We have received one more agreement for Piyush Heights, making the total count to 17.. Any takers for remaining projects.....

In response to the query raised by several members yesterday, Please find attached list of agreements which are available with GFWA legal team

1. Princess Park, Sector-86, Faridabad - BPTP
2. Park 81, Parklands, Faridabad - BPTP
3. Park Grandeura, Sector-82, Faridabad - BPTP
4. Park Elite Floors, Faridabad - BPTP
5. Omaxe Spa Village, Sector-78, Faridabad - Omaxe ltd
6. Omaxe Heights, Sector-86, Faridabad - Omaxe ltd
7. RPS Palms, Faridabad - RPS Infrastructure Limited
8. RPS Savana, Faridabad - RPS Infrastructure Limited
9. SRS Residency, Sector-88, Faridabad - SRS Real Estate
10. SRS Pearl floors, Faridabad - SRS Real Estate
11. Dhingra Jardine Suburbian Floors, Sector-80, Faridabad - Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure
12. Ferrous City, Faridabad - Ferrous Infrastructure & Developers
13. Ozone Park, Sector-86, Faridabad - Shivsai Infrastructure
14. Uppal's Jade, Faridabad - Sector-86, Faridabad - Uppal Housing Limited
15. Era Redwood residency - Sector-78, Faridabad - Era Landmarks Limited
16. Era Divine court, Sector-76, Faridabad - Era Landmarks Limited

Our legal team is working toward bringing our common concerns to the attention of CCI, In case your project is not listed above, Request you to send a copy of agreement ASAP to aashkaul@gmail.com or core@myfaridabad.in.

[sagar.rajbhar]

Hi Seema,

As discussed in Town Park, you can add the name of representative for BPTP case in your GWFA

Vidya Sagar - 9971128076
Ghayur Zahiri - 9810776529

Thanks

Sagar

[s1joshi]

Dear Sagar

It will be of great help, If you provide details in required format in the Neharpaar Project representative thread, This will help us to have data collated at single place.

PFA Link to Neharpaar project representative thread.

neharpar-residential-project-representatives-t770.html

[webmaster]

Here is an important article published on complaints to Competition Commission of India (CCI) against real estate developers.
=================================================================
LEGAL REMEDIES Whom do you go to with a complaint?
Vivek Kohli - HT Estates

As litigants found out in the Raheja case, what might have got them relief under the Consumer Act was erroneously addressed to the Competition Commission of India

Much has been written about the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposing a penalty of R630 crore on DLF. In its order, a range of clauses contained in the buyer's agreement under dispute were comprehensively analysed as being arbitrary and unreasonable. In the DLF case, CCI had held that the developer was guilty of abusing its dominant position. CCI also observed how attractive advertisements announcing launch of projects were usually issued without land being actually purchased or project building/layout plans being submitted to the town planner or without securing the approval of competent authorities.
Similar issues came up again recently before the CCI regarding a residential property developed by Raheja Developers Private Limited.
In this case, the applicants contended that several clauses in the buyer's agreement were arbitrary, unfair and unilateral. This included the developer's unilateral right of shifting the location of the flat originally booked and its right to alter the flat's layout plans, specifications and super area. The applicants also contended that instead of correcting/modifying these clauses, the developer abused its dominant position by cancelling the applicants' allotment and forfeiting the earnest money instead.

In brief, the issues were: Did certain clauses in the flat buyer's agreement violate sections 3 and 4 of the Act applicants' and did cancellation of the allotment by the developer amount to an abuse of the dominant position by the developer?

In this case, the CCI held that there was no prima facie case for proceeding under the provisions of Competition Act, 2002.

Section 3 of the Act is applicable when there is an agreement amongst the enterprises which are engaged in the production or supply of identical or similar goods or services ­ leading to complications such as the cases mentioned here. But in the present case, CCI held that there was no such agreement between the enterprises that were engaged in production/supply of identical or similar goods or service, and hence Section 3 was not applicable.

As for Section 4 of the Act, CCI observed that there can be a violation under Section 4 only when an enterprise is dominant in the relevant market. In the present case, there was no evidence to suggest that Raheja was dominant in the real estate sector, either in Gurgaon or for that matter across India. Hence, the question of violation of Section 4 of the Act did not arise. Buyers should initiate legal action against a developer carefully. Not every developer can be said to be in a dominant position. Thus, one must keep in mind that not every case involving a builder and buyer will fall under the Competition Act, 2002 and jurisdiction of CCI.

In such cases, initiating legal THINKSTOC action under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be a better option for an aggrieved buyer.

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLIC ... tml?Mode=1

[asad]

Dear Sirs
Sorry for being late in my reply. I have an agreement for Dhingra Jardine's Gemini Grove, California County, Sector 80. Please let me know the address where I can send a copy of the agreement.

[naveenarichwal]

I have already sent the scanned copy of this agrement to bot email addresses.

[naveenarichwal]

Consumer court is the answer to these questions.

[pgarg2000]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-new ... 68215.aspx

No mercy for developers who dupe: HC

Delhi high court has expressed concern over rising instances of township developers duping people after accepting huge amounts as booking charges for projects, maintaining such offenders deserved no mercy.

It is to be remembered that the investors are losing their hard earned money, said the court. The comments came while it rejected the bail plea of Sanjay Gambhir, a city-based developer accused of cheating the public to the tune of Rs. 230 crore.

“Offences which have been committed by the petitioner with other co-accused are of high magnitude of mass public fraud and cheating, and such offences being on high rise in the city, the petitioner does not deserve any mercy,” said Justice ML Mehta. Gambhir, as the director of D.D. Infrastructure along with the co-accused, including his wife and son, had allegedly launched certain township projects in Faridabad, Sonepat, Zirakpur and Mohali in 2005-06.

According to police, amounts running into crores of rupees were received as booking charges. It is alleged that the amount was collected fraudulently, as none of the proposed projects were approved by authorities. Gambhir was on interim bail till December 22 last year. But after he failed to comply with the conditions during the interim bail, including refund of money with interest to the investors, the court cancelled the interim protection and he has been in custody since then.

The court said there was no way the developer could be granted bail as the number of complainants/investors continued to rise. “All the complainants/investors have been raising hue and cry for having been duped of their hard earned money and the prosecutor as also the investigating agency is pressing for custodial interrogation for the investigation of the FDI amount of about Rs. 230 crore, which had been received by the petitioner and his co-accused persons.”